Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat weblog has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is David Brophy, Birgit Clark, Merpel, Jeremy Phillips, Eleonora Rosati, Darren Smyth, Annsley Merelle Ward and Neil J. Wilkof. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate in our community. You can email the Kats here

For the half-year to 30 June 2015, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Suleman Ali, Tom Ohta and Valentina Torelli.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Sunday, 1 April 2012

From time to time the IPKat posts items on data processing and personal data, but perhaps not as often as he should. However, he has received an interesting note from Stephen Vousden, who has spotted another interesting and potentially important reference to the Court of Justice for the European Union on that legally difficult and politically sensitive area of exceptions to the principle that an individual should have a right to access personal information concerning that person. As Stephen explains:

"X v IND

In 2009 an individual applied for asylum in The Netherlands. Within six months, the Dutch Immigration Service had refused that application. That decision however was withdrawn in 2010, and a fresh decision was taken three months later, the Immigration Service again refusing the applicant's asylum application.

The applicant for asylum then requested to see the so-called minuut (this is the document which had formed the basis of the Immigration Service's 2010 decision). The minuut often contains information about the origin of the applicant, the applicant's file history, the evidence submitted, declarations and details, and the legal provisions applicable to an individual's application. The minuut also contains an assessment of the data in the light of the applicable provisions.

Before July 2009 the Immigration Service used to provide asylum seekers with a copy of the minuut when this was requested. However, the Service changed its policy and subsequently described the minuut as 'legal analysis'. Accordingly, the Immigration Service refused this particular failed asylum seeker's request for a copy of the minuut. Since the refusal constituted a decision, the failed asylum seeker could, and did, appeal the Service's decision to the Service. The Service held the appeal to be without foundation.

On a further appeal, the matter was heard by an administrative law judge at the Middelburg District Court. That judge noted that Dutch public law appeared contradictory. On the one hand, the Dutch Supreme Court had taken a broad approach to the right of inspecting files because people should be able to check the accuracy of the information held about them. On the other hand, the Dutch Council of State had ruled that the minuut did not fall within the concept of personal data and not every document needed to be copied.

The Middelburg District Court judge noted that either party might appeal the eventual judgment and that the competent institution to the hear the appeal would be the Council of State. However, the judge was concerned that the Council of State's rulings about the legal status of the minuut might not be correct: the judge found the rulings difficult to square with the approach of the EU's Article 29 Data Protection Working Party in Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data. For the sake of ensuring coherence in the legal order, therefore, the administrative law judge decided to refer a number of questions to the CJEU:

1. Is the data about the data subject which is contained in the minuut and which is of concern to them, personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Data Processing Directive?

2. Is the legal analysis included in the minuut personal data within the meaning of that provision?

3. If the Court confirms that the data described above is personal data, should the controller/government body grant the right of access to this personal data as a result of Article 12 of the Data Processing Directive and Article 8(2) EU Charter?

4. Can the data subject in this instance also rely directly on Article 41(2)(b) of the EU Charter and, if so, should the words 'while respecting the legitimate interests of the confidentiality of decision-making' be so interpreted that the right to inspect the minuut can be refused?

5. Where the data subject requests an inspection of the minuut, should the controller/government body provide a copy of this document in order to comply with the inspection right?"

This Kat has watched over the years as there has been a gradual drift away from official secrecy and procedural confidentiality, towards greater transparency and freedom of information. This process has been an essential part of public accountability. Judicial and quasi-judicial decision-making processes would seem to be the area in which this drift has encountered the greatest resistance. The position which the CJEU takes can accelerate the information flow or staunch it, so its ruling is awaited with great interest,

1 comment:

Stephen said .. The word 'controller' should have read 'processor'. And the official English translation of the questions is now on the Curia website under C-141/12, Y.S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel'

The IPKat's sidebar contents

Want to complain?If you feel that you have been unfairly prevented from posting a comment on one of this weblog's features, here's what you can do about it

The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for youThe IPKat lists his 'family' of IP blogs, some of which focus on specific rights, geographical zones, markets or interests

How many page-views?See how many times the pages of the IPKat weblog have been purr-viewed

The Kat that tweetsToo short to blog? Some news and views are still worth airing, thanks to Twitter

Want to receive the IPKat weblog by email?You can get each post, or a digest, sent direct to your favourite mailbox

Not just any old IPKatEvery so often, this feline creeps into the limelight

The IPKat's RSS feeding arrangementsFeedburner and all those other things ...

What you've been sayingHere are the most recent readers' comments on the IPKat's posts

The IPKat's Greatest Hits!Here are the five posts on the IPKat's weblog that have received the most attention from readers over the past 30 days

Has the Kat got your tongue?Some translation facilities for readers whose first language is not English, or who are just plain masochistic

Creative Commons licenceYou too can make use of this blog's contents, if you follow the rules

The IPKat ArchiveAncient posts, going back to June 2003

Want to complain?

If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation -- essentially that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should be relevant to the blogpost on which they purport to comment.

If you feel that your comment should have been moderated, please email the IPKat at theipkat@gmail.com and let him know, since it may be that your comment has been misdirected into the Blogger software's Spam file.

In the event that there has been no software malfunction and that your post has been rejected, if you want to appeal against this decision please contact either (i) Dr Danny Friedmann of theIP Dragonweblog (ipdragon@gmail.com) or (ii) Professor Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O weblog (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). Danny or Dennis will review your complaint, preserving the confidentiality of your identity and will let both you and us know whether your complaint is justified.

If your complaint relates to bias or distortion, the IPKat suggests that you contact him initially, bearing in mind that he and Merpel are generally willing to host pieces by guest contributors even when their opinions are at odds with those of this blog's contributors.